SREEVALSAM HOTELS & RESORT PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/25062/2021HC KeralaKLHC01063433202112 November 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P5 & P6) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petitions, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment orders or the stay petitions themselves, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of ensuring timely consideration of the stay applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Sreevalsam Hotels & Resort Private Ltd., is aggrieved by assessment orders for assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent 1). The petitioner has filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 2) and also filed stay petitions against the assessment orders. The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings before their stay petitions are considered. Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the timely disposal of the stay petitions and a stay on coercive actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious consideration of their stay petitions filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that they are facing potential coercive proceedings and that their stay petitions need to be considered promptly to avoid undue hardship. They seek a direction from the High Court to the appellate authority to decide the stay petitions within a stipulated time. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. The revenue was represented by counsel, but their arguments on the merits of the stay petitions or the writ petition are not detailed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 25062 OF 2021 PETITIONER : M/S.SREEVALSAM HOTELS & RESORT PRIVATE LTD., RAJAVALSAM, PANANGADU P.O., KULANADA VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 503 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI.ARUN RAJ PILLAI. BY ADVS. S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF DIVYA RAVINDRAN M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, 28/243, "POORNIMA", PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 25062 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25062 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2021 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 Ext.P2 orders of assessment relating to assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 petitioner has preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent, copies of which are produced as Ext.P3 & Ext.P4. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as Exts.P5 & P6. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition. 2. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction. 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 & Ext.P6 stay petitions, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE RKM

WP(C) NO. 25062 OF 2021 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25062/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/09/2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2015-16 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION STATEMENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/09/2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION STATEMENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20/10/2021 FOR AY 2015-16,E-FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20/10/2021 FOR AY 2017-18, E FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22/10/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22/10/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →